Compassionate Atheism ... ?

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times printed a special op-ed by Sam Harris, atheist know-it-all and author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.” Harris praised California Democrat Pete Stark for being the first openly atheistic U.S. Congressman, and he called on Americans to break “the spell” of religion and dig a fresh grave for the “God of the Bible and the Quran.” Besides his condescension and arrogance (the usual pre-requisites for atheist writers when dealing with subject matter beyond their comprehension), Harris’ style is positively bursting with a surprising level of confidence, far surpassing anything an accidental, mutant product of primordial soup should be permitted to display. “There is not a person on earth,” he announces, ”who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead… Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources. … Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.”

Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.

It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.

Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.

But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”

This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?

A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.

Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?

Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.

Gun control legislative report

I've been nominated by Carol for the Thinking Blogger Award. It's encouraging to know that someone finds this information and opinion worth thinking about! Thank you, Carol.

I'm supposed to nominate five others. Problem is, I have my own business, and it has nothing to do with offices, computers, or the internet. In other words, I don't have a lot of time and don't really know of that many other blogs. I don't know if this is kosher, since he was nominated by Mrs. Lyman already, but I absolutely must begin with Will at Pro-Libertate. It is nice to know I'm not the only constitutionalist sometimes accused of being a lefty. Like Carol, I'll nominate more in the next few posts.

Here's a long overdue "gun control" legislative update for Americans and Pennsylvanians. Be angry, it's OK. This is the stuff that protects the Cho Sueng-Huis of this country from their victims. Use the links to the left to read the bills yourself or to contact your public servants and give them your instructions.


Federal legislation:

Bad -

HR 1022 (A pumped up version of the Clinton assault weapons ban; very sweeping and vague.)

HR 96 (Mandates criminal background checks at all gun shows. Also would require organizers of any gun show to notify the Attorney General in writing 30 days before the event of the date, duration and location and submit a list of all vendors; and to submit a ledger with identifying information for each vendor to the Attorney General within 5 days after the event.)

· SB 77 (Amends Title 18 to allow inspections of FFL dealers “whenever the Attorney General may reasonable require” instead of the current “not more than once during any 12 month period.”)

· HR 256 (This bill increases penalties for youth possession of handguns or semiautomatic firearms and for transfer of such firearms to youth; makes a gun owner responsible if a child obtains their firearm; and makes the guardian of a child who is left unattended at a gun show subject to charges of child abandonment.)

Good -

· HR 861, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007
· HR 226
· SB 388
(Essentially requires states to recognize permits issued by other states.)

· HR 73 (I don’t like any attempt to regulate the 2nd Amendment; however this bill is certainly a step in the right direction from where we are.)

· HR 1096 (Absolutely an excellent bill: it would repeal all criminal background check and safety lock requirements and eliminate the so-called “sporting purposes” distinction.)


PA State legislation:

Bad -

Title: HOUSE BILL 760 (One gun a month. Also requires registration with State Police of all firearms owned by PA citizens [except antique firearms], including a massive collection of personal and identifying information. State Police are not required by the Act to approve any application. Non-approval would require firearm to be surrendered. Approved registrants would be required to store firearm locked or disassembled; notify State Police within 48 hrs of change of registration information and 48 hrs prior to any sale or transfer; and pay an annual tax of $10 on each registered firearm.)

Title: SENATE BILL 48
Title: HOUSE BILL 30
(Massive assault weapons ban: sweeping, vague language; would “grandfather” currently owned assault weapons on condition of annual registration, annual background checks, and annual home inspections by State Police.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 957 (Bans 5.7 mm pistols)

Title: HOUSE BILL 291 (Requires all handguns sold in PA to be “smart” handguns capable of being fired only by “authorized persons;” and confiscation of all other handguns. Grandfathers ownership of previously manufactured handguns but bans their sale or transfer. Violation constitutes a third-degree felony.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 277 (Requires all handguns to be equipped with trigger locks and to be identified in a State Police database by serial # and ballistics identifier)

Title: HOUSE BILL 22 (One gun a month)

Title: HOUSE BILL 20 (Would make it unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within easy reach of a minor.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 29 (Est. registry for lost/stolen firearms and makes failure to report loss or theft within 24 hrs a summary offense with $500 fine)

Title: SENATE BILL 701 (Bans purchase of a firearm with knowledge of or intent to transfer to another individual. Provides for defense against charges on the grounds that the purchase was intended for a gift. Also would legalize the currently unlawful retention of handgun purchase records by the SP.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 481 (House version of above bill: also creates a judicial loophole to allow conviction under this act to occur without a trial and without notice to the defendant; allows the state to appeal a sentence if the court does not apply this act.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 784 (Makes transfer of a firearm to an ineligible person a third-degree felony.)

Title: HOUSE BILL 18 Title: HOUSE BILL 25 Title: HOUSE BILL 23 Title: HOUSE BILL 485
(All four would permit cities and other municipalities to regulate firearm ownership and possession via referendum in a long list of ways.)

Good –

Title: HOUSE BILL 641 (Essentially establishes the Castle doctrine as PA law and affirms the right of a law-abiding citizen to defend themselves or others against criminal actions or threats; rejects the supposed duty to attempt to retreat; prevents perpetrators from bringing civil actions against a citizen for harm resulting from the citizen’s justifiable use of force; and (obliquely) requires peace officers to make reasonable efforts to identify themselves before entering a home or business.)

_____________________________________

A few tips when contacting legislators:

1 - Never count on lobbying groups to get the job done. In my opinion the worst mistake we have made is relying on groups like the NRA, GOA – you name it – to let our elected officials know what we expect of them. Lobbyists are uniquely positioned to educate legislators about the facts and statistics surrounding this and other issues, but ultimately politicians don’t care about facts, they care about money and votes. They aren’t elected by lobbying groups, and there are other groups vying for their attention that have far deeper pockets than the NRA or GOA.

2 - When a bill is in committee, it is best to contact the members of the committee. It is also helpful to contact your own legislators to let them know that you are aware of the bill and how you expect them to vote should it make it to the floor. Once it reaches the floor, committee membership is irrelevant.

3 - A personal note, ideally handwritten, is the most effective way for an individual to influence their legislators. You don’t have to write an essay – the details are the job of the lobbying groups; just name the bill, say whether you want them to support it or not and give a couple sentences to explain your position. If you are in their district, say so. If you voted for them, say so.

4 - The next best thing would be a phone call. If you can write and call, do it. It doesn’t hurt to call every time an action is taken on a bill.

5 - The mass emails and petitions that organizations send you to forward to your legislator have almost no effect unless they arrive in such quantity that their system is affected. Staff members often simply delete them – regardless, the legislator knows that it takes very little effort to forward an email or sign a petition, and they view those items accordingly. Once a bill is on the floor and nearing a vote email can be more effective - they usually keep a tally of the number of emails received for and against a bill; but until then, take the extra time to write a note.

What aren't we thinking?

In the last post I mentioned that last August, Virginia Tech student Bradford B. Wiles called on the University to allow students licensed to carry in VA to do so on campus. Last night I received a link to an article that appeared in the Roanoke Times on Jan. 31, 2006, regarding a bill in the VA legislature (HB 1572) that would have nullified "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun" on public university campuses. The article quoted Virginia Tech spokesperson Larry Hincker as saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

The article continued: "Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus. In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities."

I hope this incident results in drastically lower enrollment for Virginia Tech. They deserve all the bad publicity they receive and more for their irresponsible policy of dependence on the state for basic security while preventing students from lawfully defending themselves.

Having demonstrated that restrictive gun laws encourage violent crime as long as criminals can find a way to obtain guns themselves, it may be instructive to inquire whether any other societal changes over the past fifty years show a similar correlation to violent crime rates. I would suggest three more shifts in our society's thinking that I believe contribute to the chilling frequency of brutal criminal acts as compared to a half-century ago.

The first: education. Children are spoiled as infants, tolerated as young children, and abandoned as soon as possible to the care of "professionals." From these all-powerful experts they learn that they are simply animals at the top of the food chain. They are stripped of any faith in a Higher Being and encouraged to consult their own feelings above every other consideration except the mandates of the state. These are held up to their reverence in almost a superstitious manner, as the modern substitute for the primitive moral ideas of their grandparents. But in spite of the distinct lack of any effort to develop their critical thinking skills, most young people manage to discern the emptiness of the state's claim to moral authority. This realization is presumably encouraged by the palpable hypocrisy apparent in the disconnect between the commands of the state and its actions.

This paradigm shift is directly related to the next: self-worship, or the shift from Christian moral standards to a self-oriented mentality. By this I do not mean that there are necessarily fewer Christians now than in the 1950's, but that American society as a whole has accepted the idea that the moral standards found in the Ten Commandments are not absolute. While humanists are quick to argue that their ethical codes have equal merit with God's law, their argument falls apart when one inquires into the consequences for violation of such codes. The flimsy argument that "our understanding of ethics has evolved to the point where we believe X to be the proper action in this situation," obviously has no inherent value to one who believes that his own pleasure is the highest law.

The third shift has the dubious distinction of being both the most obvious and the most hotly denied culprit: entertainment. The amount of violence and brutality absorbed by Americans today through visual entertainment would likely give Nero himself nightmares. Our society is so thoroughly sick that torture and raw violence are "enjoyed" by tens of millions of Americans every day. Hollywood producers vie with one another to push the limits of human blood-thirst further than any post-deluvian society has ever done, making even African cannibalism or Aztec rituals seem tame in comparison. The scenes that sent hundreds of shell-shocked young men reeling from the trenches in WWI and WWII seem like child's play compared to the daily diet of today's fantasy-obsessed video gamester. Even young children scampering through the toy store now find such stimulating and educational material as the Mad Scientist dissecting aliens or HE-MAN fighting the evil SKELETOR.

Combine such a vicious visual diet with many of today's musical lyrics and it cannot fail to be obvious to any thinking person where the modern killer cuts his teeth. And yet - even when the Columbine shooters flaunt death metal T-shirts as they gun down their fellow students; even when Cho Seung-Hui slaughters young and old indiscriminately while decked out like an action figure - Americans clamor for their Big Brother to save them from the bad guys via more control and micro-management of their daily lives while tenaciously embracing the very violence that is the inevitable judgement of God on their nation.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Barking up the wrong tree.

The shooting at VA Tech has elicited some fascinating responses from folks outside our country. Australian Prime Minister John Howard placed the blame for Monday's shooting on "the U.S. gun culture." The BBC's Matt Frei expressed what many around the world are thinking when he asked, "Will the soul-searching ever produce legislation and will it make schools safer?" Of course, the legislation he refers to is tighter so-called "gun control."

Such reactions are not suprising from citizens of the U.K., which has a long history of infringment on the right to keep and bear arms. Many of the Queen's loyal subjects appear to have taken leave of their critical thinking skills along with their firearms. Certainly their puzzled questions do not arise from a careful look at the relationship between gun control and violent crime. We Americans can boast one city with a U.K.-style gun ban: Washington, D.C. While that city happens to be slightly less dangerous than Baghdad, I would urge anyone who feels that such a ban could improve their safety to take up a temporary residence in the U.S. capital and test the theory.

Fifty years ago, in most states, owning and carrying a gun was simple. You simply bought the gun and carried it. Not even the local sheriff needed to know. There were no age limits, no background checks, no registration, no permits in most places, and ... wonder of wonders ... no school shootings either! Fifty years ago in NYC, eighth-graders could take their rifle and ammunition on the subway with them so that they could shoot at the range after school. Anyone who compares the gun laws and violent crime rates of the 1950's with gun laws and violent crime rates today will reach the inevitable conclusion that gun laws do not discourage violent crime, rather they encourage it.

V.A. Tech student Bradford B. Wiles might be able to explain the reason why. In August of last year, he wrote an editorial in the Roanoke Times regarding an incident that occurred at VA Tech on August 21, 2006. He says:

"On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

"Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

"It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

"Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

"I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. ... Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. ... when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, 'I would feel safer if you had your gun.'"

Keep in mind that this was written over seven months prior to Monday's tragedy.

Gun control is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But there are other factors that play a major role as well. I'll get to them next time.

Echoooooooes

Falsehood in the 'hood?

Today is National Climate Action Day! Let your voice be heard! Now is the time to demand that your elected officials take action to curb your wasteful lifestyle!

I suspect we’re nearing the peak of consternation over the planet’s temperature fluctuations. I’m already looking forward to the next Ice Age scare.

I’ve been working on a post regarding so-called “racism” for a while now. Unfortunately it’s not completed yet. I do have a question: why is discrimination based on skin color viewed so differently than discrimination based on any number of other factors? The Bible teaches clearly that we are all of one blood. So what is it that makes “racism” morally more heinous than “hairism” - or any other reason why one group of people treat another group with disrespect or condescension?

It seems to me that by treating “racism” as a specific sin in its own right, we accept the unbiblical “race” argument as it is made by those who seek to exploit it. Those who look down on less educated people aren’t guilty of “schoolism,” they are guilty of pride. Skinny kids who make fun of fat kids aren’t “weightist,” they’re just mean. There are innumerable reasons why carnal humans treat others unkindly, and ultimately, they all come down to pride and selfishness. Why don’t we identify sin by its real name?

While we’re talking about calling sin for what it is, check out this quote from Hillary’s best friend. Barack Obama told this story to a still-segregated church in Selma, Alabama:

“Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, “Ripples of hope all around the world.” Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD’s decided that's enough and we’re going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedy’s decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

The emphasis is mine, to assist those who may be unwilling to follow the plot too closely. Two facts are important to note here: Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961. The first of the marches in Selma, Alabama took place in 1965.

Can anyone spell l – i – a - r? Seems like the fresh face Obama claims to be is just one of many faces. He stands out from the pack for one reason: the media. Personally, I believe they have selected him as their baby-doll to ensure Hillary’s election. She is so disliked by the old southern base of the Democratic Party that if someone like Sen. Edwards were permitted to appear like a viable challenge Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance. Her nomination depends on the begrudged support of the southern Democrats, and rightly or wrongly, Obama is just the man to make sure she has that support.

Finally, here's a telling bit of information from Dr. Chuck Baldwin's weekly column:

"Not only has President Bush turned a blind eye to the gigantic national security risks posed by unfettered illegal immigration, he has become the most outspoken expeditor of illegal immigration.

"For example, just recently, President Bush gave a directive to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals demanding that a convicted Mexican rapist and murderer on death row be given another hearing. In what is obviously an attempt to grovel before and appease the Mexican government, Bush used an International Court of Justice ruling to justify this presidential intrusion into the State of Texas's judicial affairs.

"The murderer's name is Jose Ernesto Medellin. He was one of six gang members convicted of brutally raping and killing two Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, who stumbled upon a violent gang initiation. But George W. Bush wants him taken off death row and given another hearing.

"Thankfully, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has no intention of being bullied by this rogue president. Judge Michael Keasler wrote that Bush "exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary." Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said that Bush's "unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution." (Source: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram)"

Folks, the arrogance and presumption of our President knows no limits. And President Hillary will be no different. It is long past time to wake up and smell the ... rats?

Be Still, My Soul

Be still, my soul! the Lord is on thy side;
Bear patiently thy cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide -
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! the winds and waves still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.

Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord;
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.

New Math?

I just received this via email, and I actually think it's worth repeating.


1. Teaching Math In 1950

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?


2. Teaching Math In 1960

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?


3. Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?


4. Teaching Math In 1980

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.


5. Teaching Math In 1990

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )


6. Teaching Math In 2006

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80 Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

I Told You So

I hate to say I told you so, but ...

Seems like President Ahm has gotten more press coverage in these last few days than in all of last year, and on his own terms. What a propaganda opportunity! No wonder he was giving medals out.

The sad thing is that he's actually right on several points. Britain does have a dismal history in the Middle East. Western countries have lost their minds and their sense of decency when it comes to sending women to fight for them, although I would question the proposition that Islam treats its women with decency either. And although the freedoms we enjoy are worth fighting for, our efforts to ram "democracy" down the throats of Middle Eastern nations are misguided at best.

Now that twice as many folks hate me as before, I'll leave. But I will be back.

"Detainees?"

Am I the only one who thinks Iran is deliberately attempting to contrast its methods of dealing with foreign suspects with those of the U.S.? I haven't heard anyone mention that possibility so far. There seem to be three common reactions to the Iranian detention of 15 British sailors and marines. Many folks wonder why Iran would detain the Brits for such a minor incursion, considering that such incidents are rather commonplace. Many more automatically connect President Ahm with hostage beheadings and suggest a nuclear strike as the obvious solution. And some poor souls are so fed up with being lied to by our government that they assume Iran is telling the truth and will "do the right thing," whatever that is.

Politics aren't limited to the U.S. of A., folks. President Ahm and his henchmen aren't stupid. Probably the Iranians are lying. Obviously they don't really think the Brits were spying. And certainly they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But why does any of that matter? The Iraq war furnishes far too many instances of dishonesty to allow for much righteous indignation now. The U.S. is holding Iranian military personnel in "undisclosed locations" at this very moment, also in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But that's ok, because we think they might be terrorists.

Of course Iran wants to return the favor, but they can't make the case that coalition forces are infiltrating Iran as terrorists. So why not charge them with spying? Maybe they weren't, but God knows some Brit somewhere is. And they haven't got much international credibility to lose. Moreover, if fudging the GPS coordinates is what it takes to get their hands on a few pawns to play against the U.S., why not do it? What a golden opportunity to contrast smiling British sailors chatting over a basket of fruit with images of dog kennels in Guantanamo Bay. And now the trial! Imagine how it will feel when President Ahm says, "We gave your spies a fair trial in open court, and all you give our soldiers is as many secret hearings as it takes to get them declared 'enemy combatants.'"

____________________

According to a Newsweek survey released last week, one out of ten Americans is a fool: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ & Psalm 53:1

____________________

There are two things that you should never watch being made: sausage and laws.
(Courtesy of a veteran midwifery lobbyist from Arkansas.)